Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. N. Pathak, learned Counsel for the Union of India, JC to AAG II for the State and also Mr. H. P. Singh learned Counsel, for the University.

2. This writ application is directed against the communique dated 29-12-2000 as contained in Annexure-13 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Govt. of India.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the dental college in question was established at Rambagh in the district of Purnea after affiliation duly granted by B. N. Mandal University on 29-6-1992. The petitioner thereafter applied before the Central Government for necessary direction to the Dental Council of India to inspect and submit its report and thereafter grant recognition in terms of the provisions of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993. The application filed by the petitioner, though was entertained but certain queries were made by the impugned communique by the Central Government stating therein that the dental college does not fulfil the conditions laid down for exemption of applicability of provision of sec. 10-A of the Dentists (Amendment) Act 1993 and on that ground its representation was rejected. However an option was given to the petitioner to apply afresh before the Central Government for its permission with requisite essentiality certificate and other related documents as per the Dental Council of India Regulation. Mr. Giri, learned Counsel further submitted that under the provisions of sec. 10-A of the Act there is no requirement of essentiality certificate to be obtained from the State Government to which the institute is situated and, therefore, the Central Government was duty-bound to direct the Dental Council of India to inspect the college in question and to grant recognition on the basis of the inspection report. It is also submitted by Mr. Girt that requirement of law as envisaged under the provisions of the Act has already been fulfilled to the extent that the college was already granted affiliation by the University in the year 1992 itself.

4. Mr. S. N. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union Government on the contrary submitted that under the provisions of the amended Act 1993, the petitioner was required to produce the essentiality certificate granted by the State of Bihar and since the application of the petitioner was not followed by the essentiality certificate, its request has been turned down. Mr. Pathak further submitted that in view of the Regulation for the Establishment of New Dental College Act 1993, essentiality certificate is required in view of amendment of sec. 10-A read with sec. 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 .

5. From Regulation 1993 it appears that the Dental Council of India in exercise of its power conferred by sec. 10-A read with sec. 20 of the Dentists Act 1948, with previous approval of the Central Government made certain Regulations governing the Dental Colleges.

6. Clause 1 of the Regulation 1993 states that these Regulations may be called the Establishment of New Dental Colleges Regulations, 1993 and they shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official Gazette.

7. Clause 3 of the Regulation 1993, contemplates "that permission/essentiality certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Dental College at the proposed location has been obtained by the applicant from the respective State Government or the Union Territory Administration.

8. Clause 4 of the Regulations 1993 relates to grant of affiliation by the concerned University.

9. According to the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the college in question was established in 1992 and the concerned University granted affiliation the same year and thereafter the petitioner applies before the Central Government for its recognition etc. Prior to the Regulation 1993 there was no provision u/s. 10-A